Life is precious: A quasi‐experimental study of a <scp>community‐based</scp> program to prevent suicide among Latina adolescents in New York City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rising rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) among U.S. Latina adolescents urgently need attention. Life is Precious (LIP) is a culturally responsive, community-based, afterschool-model program offering wellness-support services to supplement outpatient mental health treatment for Latina adolescents experiencing STB's. This 12-month quasi-experimental pilot study explored LIP's impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Latina adolescents newly enrolled in LIP and receiving outpatient treatment (n = 31) and those newly starting outpatient treatment only (n = 12; Usual Care) were assessed for Suicidal Ideation (Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire; SIQ) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9). We estimated differences in mean scores using longitudinal linear mixed models and adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) of SIQ-25%, SIQ-50%, and PHQ-9-5-point improvements using exact logistic models. RESULTS: The direction of the estimated impact of LIP was positive [differences (95% CIs): -15.5 (-34.16, 3.15) for SIQ; -1.16 (-4.39, 2.07) for PHQ-9], with small-to-moderate nonsignificant effect sizes (0.19-0.34). LIP participants saw two to three times higher prevalence than controls of SIQ-25%, SIQ-50%, and PHQ-9-5-point improvements; ARRs (95% CIs) were 1.91 (0.61, 3.45), 3.04 (0.43, 11.33), and 1.97 (0.44, 5.07), respectively. Suicidal behaviors also decreased in LIP. CONCLUSION: The effects of LIP were in positive directions across clinical outcomes, warranting further research on its effectiveness in decreasing STBs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".